http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/Editorial/What-Is-.../What-Is-VP9-111334.aspx
Why have you not joined the VP9 master race, /g/?
Because 4chan doesn't support VP9 and VP9 is worse than HEVC.
>>54797368
Wrong, read the article
>In April 2015, Streaming Media published comparative results showing that HEVC and VP9 produced virtually identical quality on the nine test samples. This was followed in November 2015 by the first HEVC comparison released by the prestigious Moscow State University (MSU) Graphics and Media Lab. In its study, MSU found that HEVC produced the same quality as x264 at 82% of the data rate, with VP9 close behind at 87%, ahead of all other HEVC codecs.
VP9 is superior to HEVC
>>54797378
>VP9 close behind
>David Ronca, Netflix’s director of encoding technologies ... stated "we are seeing very good results with VP9 vs. x264. Our current data suggests that VP9 is less efficient than HEVC, but still very good.
>>54797191
Because the encoders for VP9 suck.
Waiting warmly for VP10
>>54797432
>The AV1 codec is largely based upon VP10, and Google has stated that they will not deploy VP10 internally or release it publicly, making VP9 the last of the VPX-based codecs to be released by Google.
VP10 is dead
Because Google is destroying it with their permanent-beta-strategy and a new format on an annual basis.
http://www.techtimes.com/articles/80948/20150902/googles-vp10-codec-promises-to-cut-down-the-size-of-4k-videos-in-half.htm
>"Our goal is to get codec development to Web speed," he said.
http://www.cnet.com/news/googles-web-video-ambitions-run-into-industry-reality/
silicon-makers won't have that.
>>54797432
You're going to be waiting a long time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VP9#VP10
It is being replaced with...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_for_Open_Media
>Why have you not joined the VP9 master race, /g/?
How the fuck do you join a codec? I doubt anybody here is ripping shit; the media is either in that format or not.
I just read this and wanted to know if there's any fast way to get data about the amount of motion in a video to then adjust the bitrate according to?
http://youtube-eng.blogspot.com/2016/05/machine-learning-for-video-transcoding.html
>>54797477
>Alliance_for_Open_Media
>high-quality open video compression codec and format that is optimized for streaming media over the internet
Is that all it's going to be aimed towards? Could we encode blurays with it and expect better gains than x264?
>>54798676
Yes you can, but unless Blu-ray players support AV1 codec, it's not gonna be very useful
>>54798782
What I meant was could we rip blurays with it a la x264 (not that blurays be encoded with it as they are with h.264 these days)
>>54798804
Yes you can rip it & convert it to AV1 video with AV1 encoder and put it in MKV container
>>54798816
Thanks anon
>>54797191
Because encoders are slow as fuck. Right now, I'm trying to encode a file to vp9 with ffmpeg and it's doing that with 0.4 fps right now and it's getting slower and slower. So unless someone takes the time to write a vp9 encoder that is actually usable Google can go fuck themselves.
>>54797465
>Google has stated that they will not deploy VP10 internally or release it publicly, making VP9 the last of the VPX-based codecs to be released by Google.
i can't find any source of that claim beside streamingmedia
>>54798841
>So unless someone takes the time to write a vp9 encoder that is actually usable Google can go fuck themselves.
https://blogs.gnome.org/rbultje/2016/05/02/the-worlds-best-vp9-encoder-eve-2/
>>54798841
What settings are you using?
>>54798890
Why would Google release VP10 when it's pretty much in AV1?
Thats just stupid, AV1 clearly will be superior
>>54798910
Used standard binaries for ffmpeg I think.ffmpeg -i input.mp4 -c:v libvpx-vp9 -b:v 2M output.webm
>>54797378
Why don't YOU read the article?
>while it's less efficient than HEVC, it compares well on quality.
Besides, this is from April 2015. HEVC is in active development, so the story is outdated.
>>54797191
OP's topic is shit, so I'll ask a general video encoding question.
Going to 10 bits reduces file sizes. Does that trend continue? Would going to 12 bits decrease file sizes even more? What about 14 bits? When does the improvement stop?
>>54798972
>Going to 10 bits reduces file sizes
Fuck off daiz
>>54799003
It does. This is a simple fact.
Could a non-idiot answer my question?
>>54799019
Don't want to question that, but it's definitely not a "simple fact". Could you elaborate on how 10 bit is supposed to reduce the file size?
>>54799061
http://x264.nl/x264/10bit_02-ateme-why_does_10bit_save_bandwidth.pdf
>>54799088
Thanks m8, interesting stuff
>>54799147
It really is. Counterintuitive, too.
It's a real shame that 10-bit video is only used by weebs, but I suppose it makes sense since nothing comes with 10-bit hardware decoding.
>>54799183
I actually wanted to give it try but noticed that it actually requires me to rebuild libx265 which is weird.
>>54799243
You can decode it with normal ffmpeg. You just can't encode.
I'm still bad with Linux, so I don't know how to build libx265 and link it to ffmpeg. Maybe I'll get around to it some day.
